Behavioral and Enhanced Perinatal Intervention (B-EPIC): A randomized trial targeting tobacco use among opioid dependent pregnant women

Consolidated guidance for behavioral intervention pilot and feasibility studies

BACKGROUND

In the behavioral sciences, conducting pilot and/or feasibility studies (PFS) is a key step that provides essential information used to inform the design, conduct, and implementation of a larger-scale trial. There are more than 160 published guidelines, reporting checklists, frameworks, and recommendations related to PFS. All of these publications offer some form of guidance on PFS, but many focus on one or a few topics. This makes it difficult for researchers wanting to gain a broader understanding of all the relevant and important aspects of PFS and requires them to seek out multiple sources of information, which increases the risk of missing key considerations to incorporate into their PFS. The purpose of this study was to develop a consolidated set of considerations for the design, conduct, implementation, and reporting of PFS for interventions conducted in the behavioral sciences.

METHODS

To develop this consolidation, we undertook a review of the published guidance on PFS in combination with expert consensus (via a Delphi study) from the authors who wrote such guidance to inform the identified considerations. A total of 161 PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations were identified via a review of recently published behavioral intervention PFS and backward/forward citation tracking of a well-known PFS literature (e.g., CONSORT Ext. for PFS). Authors of all 161 PFS publications were invited to complete a three-round Delphi survey, which was used to guide the creation of a consolidated list of considerations to guide the design, conduct, and reporting of PFS conducted by researchers in the behavioral sciences.

RESULTS

A total of 496 authors were invited to take part in the three-round Delphi survey (round 1, N = 46; round 2, N = 24; round 3, N = 22). A set of twenty considerations, broadly categorized into six themes (intervention design, study design, conduct of trial, implementation of intervention, statistical analysis, and reporting) were generated from a review of the 161 PFS-related publications as well as a synthesis of feedback from the three-round Delphi process. These 20 considerations are presented alongside a supporting narrative for each consideration as well as a crosswalk of all 161 publications aligned with each consideration for further reading.

CONCLUSION

We leveraged expert opinion from researchers who have published PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations on a wide range of topics and distilled this knowledge into a valuable and universal resource for researchers conducting PFS. Researchers may use these considerations alongside the previously published literature to guide decisions about all aspects of PFS, with the hope of creating and disseminating interventions with broad public health impact.

Expert Perspectives on Pilot and Feasibility Studies: A Delphi Study and Consolidation of Considerations for Behavioral Interventions

Background

In the behavioral sciences, conducting pilot and/or feasibility studies (PFS) is a key step that provides essential information used to inform the design, conduct, and implementation of a larger-scale trial. There are more than 160 published guidelines, reporting checklists, frameworks, and recommendations related to PFS. All of these publications offer some form of guidance on PFS, but many focus on one or a few topics. This makes it difficult for researchers wanting to gain a broader understanding of all the relevant and important aspects of PFS and requires them to seek out multiple sources of information, which increases the risk of missing key considerations to incorporate into their PFS. The purpose of this study was to develop a consolidated set of considerations for the design, conduct, implementation, and reporting of PFS for interventions conducted in the behavioral sciences.

Methods

To develop this consolidation, we undertook a review of the published guidance on PFS in combination with expert consensus (via a Delphi study) from the authors who wrote such guidance to inform the identified considerations. A total of 161 PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations were identified via a review of recently published behavioral intervention PFS and backward/forward citation tracking of well-know PFS literature (e.g., CONSORT Ext. for PFS). Authors of all 161 PFS publications were invited to complete a three-round Delphi survey, which was used to guide the creation of a consolidated list of considerations to guide the design, conduct, and reporting of PFS conducted by researchers in the behavioral sciences.

Results

A total of 496 authors were invited to take part in the Delphi survey, 50 (10.1%) of which completed all three rounds, representing 60 (37.3%) of the 161 identified PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations. A set of twenty considerations, broadly categorized into six themes (Intervention Design, Study Design, Conduct of Trial, Implementation of Intervention, Statistical Analysis and Reporting) were generated from a review of the 161 PFS-related publications as well as a synthesis of feedback from the three-round Delphi process. These 20 considerations are presented alongside a supporting narrative for each consideration as well as a crosswalk of all 161 publications aligned with each consideration for further reading.

Conclusion

We leveraged expert opinion from researchers who have published PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations on a wide range of topics and distilled this knowledge into a valuable and universal resource for researchers conducting PFS. Researchers may use these considerations alongside the previously published literature to guide decisions about all aspects of PFS, with the hope of creating and disseminating interventions with broad public health impact.

Tobacco treatment incorporating contingency management, nicotine replacement therapy, and behavioral counseling for pregnant women who use substances: a feasibility trial

Introduction

Most pregnant women with substance use problems smoke, and few will quit during their pregnancy. Tobacco treatment is often overlooked, with the focus usually placed on other substance use. Additionally, few targeted effective treatments for this group exist. To address this, the feasibility of an intensive tobacco treatment incorporating contingency management (CM) that featured non-face-to-face delivery was examined.

Methods

A single-arm pre-post design feasibility trial was conducted in three antenatal services that support women who use substances in metropolitan Australia. Participants were over the age of 15, had <33-week gestation, and smoked tobacco daily. They received financial incentives for daily carbon monoxide-verified smoking abstinence or reduction through an internet-based CM programme, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) posted to women and partners or household members who smoked and telephone-delivered behavioral counseling from study enrolment to birth.

Results

Of the 101 referrals, 46 women (46%) consented. The mean (SD) age was 31(±6) years, and the gestation period was 22(±6) weeks. Nineteen (41%) of those enrolled were retained for 12-week postpartum. Of 46 women, 32 (70%) utilized CM; 32 (70%) used NRT for ≥2 weeks; 23 (50%) attended ≥1 counseling session; and 15 (22%) received NRT for partners/household members. Fifteen (33%) were verified abstinent from tobacco at delivery after a median (IQR) period of abstinence of 65(36-128) days. All non-smokers at birth utilized NRT and financial incentives, and 9/15 (60%) utilized counseling. Four (9%) were abstinent at 12-week postpartum. Median cigarettes smoked/day reduced from baseline to delivery (10(6-20) to 1(0-6) p =< 0.001). Women who quit smoking had more education (72% vs. 33% p =< 0.02), completed more CO samples (median (IQR) 101(59-157) vs. 2(0-20) p =< 0.001), and received more incentives (median (IQR) $909($225-$1980) vs. $34($3-$64) p =< 0.001). Intervention acceptability was rated favorably by participants (9 items rated 0-10 with scores >5 considered favorable).

Discussion

This study demonstrated the feasibility and acceptability of a consumer-informed, non-face-to-face intensive tobacco treatment, highlighting the potential of remotely delivered technology-based CM to reduce the health impact of tobacco smoking in high-priority populations. The intervention demonstrates scale-up potential. Future studies should extend treatment into the postpartum period, utilizing new technologies to enhance CM delivery and improve counseling provision and partner support.

Clinical trial registration

https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=374196, ACTRN1261800056224.

Use of Vaping as a Smoking Cessation Aid: A Review of Clinical Trials

Purpose

Smoking is a global public health concern, with a significant negative impact on human health and healthcare spending. Vaping, or the use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes), has emerged as a popular alternative to traditional nicotine replacement therapies (NRTs) for smoking cessation. While considered less harmful than combustible cigarettes, the long-term health effects of e-cigarettes (vaping) are unknown. Therefore, this study aimed to identify and provide a comprehensive overview of the performance of vaping in clinical trials.

Patients and Methods

A search was conducted in the ClinicalTrials.gov database on April 14th, 2023, using the search term "smoking cessation, e-cigarettes, NRTs, and vaping". Inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined to identify relevant clinical trials. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized clinical trials that evaluated vaping as a therapeutic approach to smoking cessation were included.

Results

A total of 87 clinical trials were identified, of which only seven were related to smoking cessation through vaping as a form of treatment. The primary endpoint was the effect of vaping as smoking cessation, and the secondary endpoints were patients' abstinence rate, withdrawal symptoms, and adverse events of e-cigarettes. Most of the trials used e-cigarettes as an intervention, with some trials including a combination of e-cigarettes and other NRTs. The trials lasted from 4 weeks to 12 months. The overall results of the trials indicated that vaping was effective in helping smokers to quit. It was also associated with a lower risk of adverse events than combustible cigarettes.

Conclusion

Vaping appears to be an effective method for smoking cessation, and it is associated with a lower risk of adverse events than combustible cigarettes.